10 Reasons To Buy a DSLR

Kurtis writes, "If you're planning on getting a digital camera for yourself this holiday season, here's 10 reasons why you should choose a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera instead of a point-'n'-shoot. DSLR cameras are obviously not perfect for everyone. This article also has a couple of small blurbs about who shouldn't buy a DSLR, and a few things that could be deemed negative aspects of DSLR cameras."

Comments

Go Digital SLR!

[BWJones]

I can't agree with this article more. Since moving from film to digital SLRs my photography has really grown because shooting digital blows away all of the risk and gives you much more creative freedom when it comes to experimental exposures such as low light photography, action photography and more. I find myself taking far more pictures and experimenting more with digital and then simply throwing away the bad experiments than I did with film because of the costs associated with film. The other thing about Digital SLRs is that in addition to the higher quality optics, the actual imaging sensors on the CCD are physically larger leading to much higher quality images than are possible with point and shoots that may possess higher megapixel counts, but have smaller physical sensor sizes.

If you are going to make the move to a digital SLR, I also highly recommend the Canon 20d/30d cameras as a good system to begin exploring a variety of different photographic styles from outdoors to action to macro and still life. You really cannot go wrong with some of the other manufacturers like Nikon with their D70/D80 and Sony, but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips. Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips. If you are planning on shooting less outdoor work or in less rigorous environments, I'd suggest introducing yourself to digital SLRs with the lower end Rebel (or Nikon D50) series which is still pretty nice hardware, just not as ruggedly built. (I've also heard rumors that Nikon is going to introduce a new lower cost D40).

For a sample of some of the images possible with the Canon 20d/30d, almost all of the images on my blog that were taken by me have been captured with the Canon 20d and associated hardware. I also have a Canon hardware list at the top of my FAQ here that may be helpful for those that are interested in some of the lens options.

The negatives that the author of the linked article writes about are also true. Hauling around all of your camera gear to various spots on the globe does get a bit harder with more (and heavier) gear. I just got back from a trip to Argentina at the foot of the Andes (pics to be posted tomorrow morning) and it does take a bit more effort to pack everything you need to take with you. The gear addiction and associated costs do not stop at the camera body and lenses either. You will find yourself buying tripods, monopods, backpacks, filters, flashes, books, more books etc...etc...etc....

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[sterno]

Agreed. I just upgraded from a Sony point and shoot digital to the Pentax K100D and have been totally thrilled. The Pentax is in the same realm as the entry level Nikon and Canon DSLR's but also has image stabilization incorporated into the CCD making low light photos better. Totally pleased with it so far.

The one caveat on the Pentax is finding good lenses for it is a bit more difficult. While you can use pretty much any lens ever made for a Pentax camera, I found that the selection of modern lenses for the canons and nikons is a bigger. Having said that, the lens it comes with is a good all purpose lense and I picked up a 50-200mm zoom that works really well.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[ScentCone]

Yes. I've been using film SLRs since the 1970s, and have burned through endless miles of film and paper. I became relatively conservative in my shooting because - never mind the cost - the sheer nuisance of getting the stuff processed was a hinderance (even if I let someone else digitize the negs). Yes, shooting film makes you a more thoughtful photographer. But...

Switching to a DSLR (in my case a Nikon D200) has completely altered my approach, entirely for the better. I'm still thoughtful about what I'm doing, but I experiment a lot more, and can adapt what I'm doing, based on the results, while my subject is still right in front me. I shoot gigabytes at a time and then trash the majority of it. The 6 fps and huge cache on the camera allow me to capture lots of things that a normal digicam or (not-insane) film SLR would never help me get, and I'm way ahead in productivity.

The added bonuses (like, Nikon's essentially miraculous, built-in remote strobe control stuff) still have me actually smiling everytime I contemplate a shoot.

But this stuff is NOT for the casual photographer - the digicams are just too good, and too reasonably priced, and too easy to use. A big ol' DSLR is not the right companion on a romantic hike or trip to a favorite restaurant. But I'm so happy to be able to put my collection of Nikon lenses to work on a new camera body, and to shoot stuff I simply never would have managed before. Seriously thinking about a D80 as a backup body (I tend to bang around in the field a lot).

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[Salvance]

For some people DSLR is definitely the right way to go ... but certainly not for the vast majority of people as the article would like us to believe. A $200 digital camera is quite an investment for most users, and the learning curve on these simple devices is quite steep for your average non-techie. But these $200 point-n-shoot cameras supply everything your average mom or dad want, while providing rather decent video and ample 'advanced' shooting modes.

Compare the point-n-shoot with what you consider an entry level camera (the Canon 20D) and we're looking at 2 completely different users. This $1000+ camera (after lenses, accessories, etc.) is far from simple to use, is less forgiving in automatic/autofocus mode, doesn't offer video, and could never fit in a pocket (or in most cases not even a backpack). It doesn't meet the needs of your average user ... who admittedly is not interested in taking professional level pictures (which yours appear to be, very nice BTW).

I have met so many average users who get sweeped into the marketing hype around DSLRs and then are highly disappointed. In the end, they often end up taking their point-n-shoot everywhere, while using the DSLR on a tripod for Christmas pictures. Hardly an effective use of $1000.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[crabpeople]

"but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips"

Apple builds intel processors? To me, apple always says less versatility - not more. You should maybe tone down the fanboism lest people get the wrong idea.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[dfghjk]

"You really cannot go wrong with some of the other manufacturers like Nikon with their D70/D80 and Sony, but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips."

Apple makes the entire widget? That's new news. Canon is like Apple in that it has a rabid fan base, but (like Apple) its products aren't as differentiated as they would have you believe. Canon had a head start on sensor technology because it developed its sensors in-house and had the funding to do it. Nikon was nearly bankrupt at the start of the digital SLR revolution and couldn't fund development on its own. Canon's digital technology lead has largely evaporated though they certainly don't take a back seat to anybody.

"Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips."

Digic is the branding of Canon's image processing processor, not it's imaging chips. Color superiority is another aspect of the Canon lore in spite of the fact that, properly calibrated, color rendition between current SLR's is not that great. Superior color quality is something more generally attributed to Canon's L lenses although I feel that's also overblown.

Anyone interested in investing in a DSLR needs to realize that they are investing in a system and, over time, will tie up more money in lenses than digital camera bodies. Since lens families actually differ more that the DSLR's themselves at this point, it would behoove new buyers to consider how they intend to use their systems and read up on the various brands at serious photography sites. The choice between Canon and Nikon (or any other brand) is more properly made by understanding the system rather than considering comparisions to Apple or dubious statements about color rendition.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[syousef]

The newer 400d has most of the features of the 30d at a much lower price (and a few of its own, like the anti-dust). If you're a beginner it's a better buy.

However if you're an absolute beginner or don't use your camera often and don't need the features of an SLR, the compacts have never been better value. What you won't get out of a compact is fast shutter speed (if you're shooting anything moving quickly like wildlife or sports, go for the DSLR), light sensititivity. With the DSLR you don't get movie mode, and though beginners can take nice shots on auto mode in good conditions, there's a lot more to master.

One other thing to consider is availability of lenses, servicing and accessories. Nikon make good cameras but I've had awful service experiences from their agents. What's worse good lenses tend to be scarce compared to say Canon. The ergonomics of the Nikon are fantastic though.

Before you buy always check out the review sites (and their forums) for the latest info. Some of the best.

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.dcresource.com/

DSLRs are still a pricey investment when you consider total cost of ownership, accessories etc. Be aware the shutters don't last forever (a few tens of thousands of shots before you need a service). Also be aware that if you want to go pro, or take razor sharp pictures you're going to have to invest big money in glass , particularly for longer focal lengths (typically a few thousand dollars though you won't have to buy it all at once - I'm still using crappy consumer lenses for this reason). Bottom line is that there's no other kind of camera that is quite so versatile particularly for action/wildlife.

DSLR advantages:
- Very versatile, flexible
- Image quality fantastic with the right lens and once you learn to use the camera
- Must have for sports/action

DSLR disadvantages:
- Only one I'm aware of with a movie mode. Don't buy a DSLR if you want to do video clips
- Price (not just purchase price of camera, but accessories, maintenance)
- Not as light weight as some of the compacts

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[swillden]

Or you actually want to adjust settings. It's no comparison.

I disagree. I have an XT and I've used a 30D. The 30D's controls do make adjusting settings a little quicker and easier, but with a little practice you can do it nearly as quickly with the XT/XTi. Chances are that your photographs will benefit more from taking the price difference between the 30D and the XTi and spending it on a better lens. 30D+decent lens == XTi+very nice lens. Unless you're regularly taking shots where the faster continuous shooting mode is important, or where you really need to be able to very quickly adjust exposure (and you're experienced enough at it to twiddle aperture and shutter speed simultaneously), I think you're better off spending the cash on glass.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[Mal-2]

I once dropped my A-1 in a Mexican river while on this trip, and although it was a quick dunk (no water in the film compartment) and it worked the rest of the day, I had to replace the shutter coil once it had dried out. I also had to get the lens cleaned as it got just enough moisture inside to grow stuff. (28-85mm f/4, it was well worth fixing.)

Since I was on a cruise ship and didn't really want to send my camera off for however long, I found a TV repair shop in Puerto Vallarta and bought a spool of coil wire. My handwound coil is not quite up to spec, so there is a slight overexposure issue at 1/750 and 1/1000 shutter speeds as I had to weaken the spring that the coil opposes. But it works to this day, and I made that emergency repair over ten years ago.

For all the abuse that camera has takes, it has held up rather well. I've gone through multiple power winders, had lenses freeze up on me, had film come off the rewind spool (that's a fun one to fix without spoiling the roll), and once even had a battery go *pop*. The camera doesn't seem to care. It was close to 20 years old when I got it and has been my primary camera for a decade. Aside from the water damage, it has never failed. This is why I wish I could just convert it to a digital back. Instead it looks like I will have to start over, as far as the body and the glass are concerned.

Ah well, the price of progress...

Mal-2

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[honkycat]

I agree -- for most people, point and shoot is the way to go. I think the article author agrees also.

Personally, I think the question is not whether to have a P&S or a DSLR, it's whether to have just the P&S or a P&S *and* the DSLR. All those reasons that a P&S is more convenient for a casual photographer are just as true for a serious photographer when he's not on a shoot. He mentions in the article the idea that the photographer, not the camera, makes the picture. There's a corollary to that -- the cheap P&S you're carrying in your front pocket takes a better picture than the high end DSLR that's at home in its case. You never know when the perfect photo might just happen and it's a lot easier to be ready all the time with a P&S.

Modern P&S digicams are good enough and cheap enough that unless you really *know* that you want a DSLR, you probably don't really want it. Get the P&S and take pictures with it. Try to take the kinds of pictures you're interested in taking. Most of them will come out just fine. If you really find that you don't have the control or image quality that you're after, even after practicing your framing and working with the settings that you do have on the P&S, then think about the DSLR. In the meantime, you'll have learned a lot about composition and subjects. And, face it, most of the pictures you'd have taken during this learning period would have been lousy with a DSLR too, so you're not likely to have missed out on much. This has the additional benefit that the same camera will be cheaper tomorrow than it is today (barring major earthquakes in Southeast Asia), so there's no reason to hurry out and buy it.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[dfghjk]

Nikon has its vocal fanbase just as PCs do, but there's no comparison between the irrationality of Canon fanboys and their Nikon counterparts. A Canon fan believes that anything Canon does is inherently superior to anything done by any other company. They believe that every Canon DSLR outperforms its competition. They believe that Canon L series lenses have no counterpart in any other manufacturer's line. They believe that Canon is the choice of every photographer unless he is a fool. Sound familiar? Sure, just like a rabid Mac fan.

That's not to say that I don't own Canon gear or macs. I own both. It's also not to say that all supporters of those platforms are that extreme.

As for your opinions on equipment, they are very subjective. For DSLRs I think most would say that the Canon 1Ds2 is better than anything Nikon makes. I think most would say that Nikon's wides are better than Canon's. Macro being of importance to me, I can say that all Nikon macro lenses are better than Canon counterparts IMO. Canon makes great telephotos, great IS, and their big lenses are more affordable too. Frankly I think that the two systems are very competitive and it only tires me to read countless posts consistently recommending Canon. You won't see Nikon users eager to post their biased slant on /. in spite of the fact that their equipment is every bit as good. In fact, for entry level DSLRs you'll find the D80 considered in very high regard.

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[drgonzo59]

over time, will tie up more money in lenses than digital camera bodies. -- Amen to that!
Most photographers I talked to, told me if I ever wanted to buy a DSLR to buy the lens(es) _first_ then buy the body. A good lens will set you back a couple thousand...

I am actually a fan of Pentax and already pre-ordered the new K10D and ordered some lenses (I like my set of primes) and then I'll wait for the new set of zoom lenses coming in spring. Along with the macro and some wide angles I already have from the Pentax K1000 (film SLR) I should be set...)

Re:Go Digital SLR!

[ScentCone]

What's that when it's at home?

Not entirely sure I'm following your question, but:

With Nikon's recent DSLRS (certainly the D200, D80), the seemingly unimpressive built-in pop-up strobe (which actually works really well as a fill flash, and is really helpful when you don't feel like mounting a larger strobe) also serves as a "controller" for devices like their SB-600 and SB-800 strobes. You can have 20 of them, if you want, sitting in various places around your space, withe strobes assigned to three different groups, all providing through-the-lens metering for well-measured light, and with the menu on the camera telling the different strobe groups what to do. The communication is handled through some very fast pre-flashes from the built-in strobe, but you can actually tell the built-in strobe not to fire during the actual exposure.

Even if you use only one companion strobe, you can use this feature to move it off-camera for more natural-looking lighting, and not have to tether it to the camera at all. It's really, really refreshing. But since you can get a second or third strobe for pretty cheap, you'll quickly find yourself adding another one on top of a bookcase, or inside a window, or on a stand with a diffuser... and you've got very professional lighting control with just about none of the fuss. I really can't rave about Nikon's i-TTL system enough. The cameras are getting very, very smart these days.

10 reasons NOT to buy a DSLR

[tverbeek]

1 - price
2 - price
3 - price
4 - price
5 - price
6 - price
7 - price
8 - size
9 - power requirements
10 - no Kodachrome or T-max 3200

Don't get me wrong: I'd love to have a DSLR (especially one compatible with my old K-mount SLR lenses), but so far, the reasons not to buy one have out weighed the reasons to buy one. I'm sticking to my compact battery-sipping 35mm SLR and my "prosumer" non-SLR digital for now.

Re:10 reasons NOT to buy a DSLR

[dotgain]

All true.
I thought I'd never end up going digital, but I can't find any good 35mm labs here any more. It's pretty depressing spending minutes sometimes setting up exposures, apertures, etc., only to see JPEG artifacts on the prints.

Took them back to the lab, yelled "WTF", and while he agreed there were noticable artifacts on the images, they were 'good enough for most people' because nobody before me had noticed.

For me, while digital has lowered the price plenty, it's also lowered the bar.

Re:10 reasons NOT to buy a DSLR

[cdrudge]

But from the article: Price: DSLR cameras are practically affordable nowadays. The big two (Canon and Nikon) currently offer DSLRs for as low as $500-$600. I challenge you to find a good non-DSLR camera for under $600. Oh wait. Just about every non-DSLR camera is under $600. Nevermind.

Re:10 reasons NOT to buy a DSLR

[cskrat]

I think he's talking about how many 1-hour photo labs will develop 35mm film by chemically developing the negative, digitizing and image of it and then printing from the digital capture using an ink jet process rather than optically projecting the image onto the print paper. Unfortunately, in his case, the equipment used by the "photo lab" is either really crappy, badly adjusted or configured for high speed at snapshot quality rather than low speed at portrait quality.

Tags are interesting

[Fordiman]

This is all well and good, but can someone please tell me who the paranoid is that keeps tagging everything with 'itsatrap'?

Re:Tags are interesting

[Fordiman]

Hm. Maybe /. should have a user option to filter out tags. I'd get rid of 'itsatrap', 'fud', and 'notfud', which all seem to get tagged onto everything.

Another reason not to get one.

[Kufat]

DSLRs can't shoot video clips, because of the way they take pictures. (Regular digital cameras, meanwhile, are finally able to shoot some relatively decent video without being limited to a few seconds.)

Re:Another reason not to get one.

[drinkypoo]

DSLRs could shoot video if they wanted to. What they couldn't let you do would be to look through the viewfinder while you're taping video, because the mirror would be in the wrong place for that. However, since they seem to all have screens on them, that's pretty much a non-issue. The real issue is that they don't even set them up to do video; they're designed to shoot stills exclusively. Even if they wanted to do video, they couldn't sample a 10MP sensor at 30 FPS and actually do something with the image data, so they'd have to read a subset of the pixels or something. This would of course produce a shit image without processing, which would take more CPU... It makes much more sense to just drop $500 on a cheapie MiniDV camcorder, you can get one with A/V passthrough for that even that can behave like a DV Bridge and convert analog video to DV or vice versa in realtime. Makes a nice gadget, and just a few years ago Sony used to sell a stereo component-sized unit that did the same thing for $500 :) (I have a DV Bridge, which sold for $200 I think.)

Best reason not to buy a DSLR:

[drinkypoo]

It will cost you at least $1000 to get a unit with decent dust-prevention equipment, maybe as much as $1200. That will get you a sexy 10MP DSLR, but I know that if I had that kind of money, I'd have more important places to spend it.

I recently looked at some Digital SLRs, and if anyone is considering buying a current-generation one for personal use, I'd say buy the cheap one (the Canon.) This is the third generation and they finally added a dust removal technology (to remove dust from the image sensor) ... and it's $200 cheaper than the competion.

Re:Best reason not to buy a DSLR:

[drinkypoo]

Get a life. You don't need dust removal technology. When's the last time *anyone* has complained about dust on their digital sensor? NEVER.

Actually, basically everyone with a DSLR without dust removal has complained about this. See, in a normal camera you have hardly any moving parts. An SLR has a huge shutter, a moving mirror, and most importantly, a removable lens. This all adds up to many many opportunities for dust to land on the sensor. You cannot safely clean the sensor if the dust does not blow off with gentle air, and many people have sent their cameras in for cleaning many times. This has definitely been a big deal among the DSLR crowd, which is why every DSLR camera in this generation has dust removal.

If I'm spending a thousand-plus dollars on a 10MP camera, I don't want to deal with dust issues. Some of the current-generation cameras go so far as to not only provide a vibrating dust removal scheme, but they also have software dust removal built into the camera - you point it at a solid wash of color (like a well-lit white wall) and it will identify dust spots and store them for later reference, automatically removing their influence (to some degree) from the images.

In other words - and this is becoming my mantra on slashdot lately - You don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Best reason not to buy a DSLR:

[fractalus]

1. Dust on a DSLR sensor does happen--I've had it happen to my Canon many times. It's easy if you're in a dusty environment. Remember that in a film camera, the film is the sensor and you get a fresh "sensor" every time you take a photo. With digital, your "film" never moves, so you get the same surface exposed to dust. Over time (and I've taken thousands of photos) dust will accumulate and begin to spoil your images. Not an issue with point & shoot because those cameras are sealed, but I change lenses several times each time I shoot, so I know it's going to be a problem.

2. Cleaning it doesn't require sending it back to the manufacturer, you can buy brushes and swabs used to clean the sensors yourself. I was nervous as hell the first time I did it; now I'm just merely nervous, but I've done it several times and I'm glad I learned how. I bought mine from Copper Hill Images. Couldn't be happier; not only is the stuff they sent good, but I made an error in ordering and ordered overlapping bundles, and they caught it and refunded the difference before I'd even brought it up with them.

You need both

[MightyYar]

Until lenses improve on cell phone cameras, you need both types of digicam if you are into photography. You need a pocket sized camera... no one would ever take an SLR camera on a serious hike, out to a bar, mountain biking, skiing, etc. On the other hand, only an SLR will give you the flexibility to express your artistic side.

It is better to have some slightly less snazzy snapshots of you and your friends with a compact camera then to miss out on photographing the occasion altogether because the camera is too big to lug around.

Please, don't tag this "itsatrap"

[setirw]

It's irrelevant, and it's not funny. I've been tagging similarly mistagged articles with "shutupwithitsatrap," and "!itsatrap."

The tag was already overused when it was remotely relevant, but today's usage is idiotic.

And yes, I acknowledge that this will be modded off-topic. I have some karma to spare.

A fairly pointless article

[caitsith01]

When the article contains remarks like this:

Most digicams are plastic, plastic, and more plastic. They feel flimsy and they're not all that hard to break. DSLRs are built to much higher standards

then you can tell that it is not particularly helpful at all. A great many 'digicams' are very nicely constructed. For example, the rather lovely Lumix range from Panasonic/Leica, one of which I am lucky enough to own, are extremely well constructed and are largely made from metals and special composites which do not feel 'plastic' in the least. They also have excellent ergonomics and performance. Many smaller cameras are also very nicely constructed, often from metal - the Canon Ixus range comes to mind.

I agree that DSLRs are nice, and I plan to acquire one myself. But it is not helpful to publish a list of 'reasons' which are little more than vague assertions that A is better than B, without taking into account either reality, or the very valid reasons why B might be preferable for many people.

Number one reason not to go DSLR

[bhmit1]

Convenience.

I love my Nikon D70 (especially since I used hotel points to buy it), but for every shot I get that others don't have a chance because of shutter speed or ability to use another lens, there's one that I missed because I didn't consider lugging out my camera bag for some event. With compact cameras being as small as ipods these days, I'd recommend that you start with one of those first, and when you want to take it to the next level, get a second camera as a dslr.

Re:Number one reason not to go DSLR

[tux0r]

Parent is right - I've got the converse situation. My Canon IXUS 50 is a great little camera with a rugged metal body and a decent control set. I can even do some manual tricks with it. However, it's got the tiny lens and tiny CCD, and consequently there's only so much you can achieve with it.

Still, the sheer ability to drop my camera in my pocket without bothering to think about its weight or inconvenience has meant that I have had my camera on hand to take some very memorable and artistic shots, with just a little patience. I intend to buy a DSLR (Nikon's new offerings are attractive - D80?) but purchasing a point-and-shoot digicam first is a Very Good Idea.

It comes down to what you want, or need, to achieve. My opinion? Take whatever camera you have wherever you go, and keep taking photos. I don't care if it's a mobile phone camera or a Hasselblad, just be creative and get used to setting up your shots. Photography isn't so much about the tool as it is about the photographer.

Why I switched from SLR

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I'll make a glaring assumption that we can take the Digital part of the equation. In other words, the comparison between a DSLR and DPAS (digital point and shoot) is about the same as between a 35mm SLR and PAS.

Since my teen years, I've had an SLR. For my wife's 30th bday I bought her a reasonable quality (Pentax) weatherproof aoto load auto focus auto flash PAS. Of course I turned my nose down and continued to use my SLR with clunky lenses and flash etc. So, often, my camera stayed at home in the closet while hers was handy in a pocket, handbag etc. I still have the SLR but I have not used it for over 8 years now.

About 4 years ago we decides digital was worth it. Got a Canon PAS + Zoom. It does a great job and is always handy. A DSLR would just get left behind.

The only time you want a DSLR is if you want to take professional pics. Professionals only account for a few % of the camera toting population.

Re:Why I switched from SLR

[Cromac]

A P&S with you is better than the DSLR but if your pictures from a P&S look the same as those from a DSLR then you're better off with a P&S. People who are good with a camera will get a lot more out of a DSLR than can be done with any P&S.

If you just want snapshots get the point and shoot, if you want photographs get the DSLR.

Re:Why I switched from SLR

[swillden]

In good light, though, I don't think SLRs have much advantage in image quality.

Yes, they do, actually. The larger sensors and larger, higher-quality lenses produce much sharper images. Take an SLR with a good lens and a P&S that have the same number of pixels and look at the images at 1:1 zoom. The P&S will be fuzzy, have chromatic aberrations like color fringing on all of the high-contrast lines, and will generally have much less fine detail, even in the center. The corners will be much worse than the SLR. Some P&S cameras also have pretty severe vignetting problems.

And that's just image quality. The other thing an SLR gives you is control. Depth of field control, in particular, can make a huge difference in the perceived quality and emotional impact of a photo. Even people who don't know anything about photography perceive a portrait with a shallow DoF (subject in focus, background blurred) as being better and more professional than one with a deep DoF, even if they can't say what makes it better. I've actually taken the same shot both ways and showed them around to get reactions. Better P&S cameras give you some aperture control, but they simply can't match an SLR.

Other important advantages of a DSLR are in the accessories: Lenses, filters, flashes, etc. By changing some attachments, a DSLR can become different kinds of cameras for different kinds of photos... including many kinds which simply don't exist in the P&S market. Some of those advantages are in poor light, but many are not. I can use a 400mm zoom lens for wildlife shots, for example, or a 90mm macro for pictures of flowers and insects. I can throw on a polarizing filter to cut the haze in landscape shots, or filter out unwanted reflections on water. I often use a flash even in full daylight, to fill in shadows on faces and soften the harsh glare of sunlight -- P&S flashes don't have the power to do that, even if the camera will let you.

I'm really just a novice photographer, just beginning to learn how to take good pictures, but even I can already get far more out of my DSLR than I can out of my high-end P&S camera.

Re:Why I switched from SLR

[Fred_A]

A P&S with you is better than the DSLR but if your pictures from a P&S look the same as those from a DSLR then you're better off with a P&S. People who are good with a camera will get a lot more out of a DSLR than can be done with any P&S.

This is a common misconception. While it does of course depend on the camera, lots of compacts output very decent pictures.

What it *does* boil down to, is that the camera that you have with you is the one that gets the best pictures.

SLR cameras have a number of advantages but are also bulky. I know I certainly don't keep my D70 and a couple lenses with me all the time. On the other hand, I always have either my Canon G3 (which is getting a bit flaky as it doesn't always start up) or my Canon S3 IS. Both can have most/all of their settings switched to manual, are small enough to fit in a coat pocket or my backpack and are versatile enough to cover most situations.

When I know I'm off to see something worthwhile or to hunt for pictures, I'll take the SLR and a compact. On a casual day, the SLR is just too bulky.

And regarding the "10 reasons", a lot of them just don't apply if you pick the right camera :

1. Creative control : most high end compacts will let you do quite a lot in this area. Few of them will let you focus manually however which can be a drawback.
2. Superior sensors : it is true that the sensors are of a better quality in most SLRs. The main thing it has an impact on is noise. Compacts are more susceptible to electronic noise. Some camera CPUs are better at dealing with this, some post processing can help but all in all the sensor size is a major factor.
3. Less noise : This is the same thing as above really.
4. Accessories galore : since the purpose of a compact is to be, well, compact, this isn't really a factor. However a number of them support standard external flash connectors which can come in handy.
5. No shutter lag : Not really a major problem with the CPUs currently found in compacts. Still a problem with some low end models though. In all cases it *will* be slightly slower than an SLR, mostly because of the autofocus. Mostly it's not slow enough to be a problem.
6. Instant startup : My compacts are ready to shoot by the time I bring them to eye level. So the half second startup time isn't a problem (except the G3 which just doesn't start up at all every now and then but I think that's just old age :( )
7. Higher build quality : Certainly. For some SLRs.
8. Viewfinder : There is indeed a trend of having compacts without a viewfinder. I always avoided those. The S3 IS has a digital "kind of reflex" viewfinder which is a bit odd at first when you're used to a SLR but which adds a lot of information (live histogram, plus all the assorted stats). The resolution isn't very high but then you don't really use it to focus. Some people hate those though so try it before getting committed. OTOH being able to use the screen to shoot can be a real boon, especially a swivelling screen like on those two compacts. For wildlife macro shots, it's invaluable.
9. Ergonomics : Well duh, pick a properly designed camera maybe ? Don't buy one without research, holding it, checking the layout... With a compact I possibly consider it even more important than with a SLR because I know it's going to be in my pocket a lot and I'm going to be able to access features easily. And a *lot* of compacts have a terrible design.
10. Price : That's where things get tricky. Basically there is no upper limit to what you can spend. As to the lower limit, it mostly depends on whether you're prepared to buy second hand or not. While SLRs have gotten cheaper, decent compacts haven't really. The best money saving trick is to wait for a new model to come out in a series and to buy the one it's replacing (like the Canon G6 now that the G7 is out).

After that it's up to what you want to do with your camera, what kind of photography you do, where you want to go from there, etc. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the camera has that much to do with what will end up on your flash card. The main factor is you, the camera is a distant second at best.

Viewfinder

[stereoroid]

Of the points raised in the article, I found the viewfinder the most convincing reason to get a DSLR. Live preview on a screen is not a replacement, especially in the dark, when a screen can kill your night vision. It's also very quick once you get used to it, and I've found the difference is particularly apparent with long lenses. Be aware, though, that not all DSLRs are equal in this respect: so far, of the established makers, Canon have been poor, Nikon average, and Pentax have really emphasised a good, bright viewfinder in their mainstream DSLRs. That may change, of course - the new Nikons are catching up.

Another key point is that you're not just buying a camera, you're buying in to a system, so the lens range needs to be taken in to account, in the long term. You're not going to be happy with the "kit lens" for very long.

Problem...

[Lumpy]

the lens that comes with most DSLR's is utter crap. the Rebel comes with a lens that makes the point and shoots look bad, but it is complete crap compared to a $250.00 Prime lens.

Granted, the most expensive DSLR is cheap compared to a good lens, and that trap can bleed you dry on your new hobby.

But, if you get a DSLR I strongly reccomend that you get a 60mm prime (I reccomend a 1.8 or faster but most people cringe at a $600.00 or more lens) and see what your DSLR camera can really do.

Re:Problem...

[dave_f1m]

The lens the Rebel comes with is complete crap compared to a $70 Prime lens. If you get a Canon, and you don't already have good lenses, get the 50mm F1.8 - it's a steal. Then, you will realise how good a lens can be, and get or at least covet the expensive lenses.

D40

[nick_davison]

In answer to 1 through 8, wait a week. Rumor has it that Nikkon's about to anounce the D40 (leaked images all over - check out dpreview.com).

By dropping the sensor resolution way down and ditching the bells and whistles you wouldn't find in similarly priced compacts either, they're looking at launching the first sub $500 DSLR.

For digital compact users who think DSLRs are too expensive - it's no around the price of a decent digital compact, no more.

For film SLR users who think DSLRs are too expensive, it's down to a few dozen rolls of film price difference and far less than the cost of a single great lens. Shoot clear of about a thousand shots, you'll save money with a DSLR.

As for power consumption, I'm not sure what's holding you back?

Batteries are rechargable so there's no real cost.

They last a reasonable length of time. A battery grip like the "big ED" holds a pair of batteries so it's down to one change every couple of hours.

Changing batteries is no more painful than changing film. If you shoot at any kind of speed you'll have to change rolls of film far more frequently than you'll have to change batteries. If you don't shoot that fast, your camera will go to idle mode and you'll get many hours of use out of a single battery.

Finally, yes, great film is still great. But, aside from its price, there are two main arguments against it:

1) No instant feedback. Say you're using ISO 3200 film to capture fast falling water droplets. Until you develop the film, you've no idea if you actually caught the instant. With digital, the proof's right there for review. It kind of sucks to finally develop film only to realize you didn't catch what you thought you did and have no way to practically recreate the shoot.

2) OK, you've loaded your camera with ISO 3200 film for a specific shot. The building rumbles, a plane has crashed outside. You spend the next couple of minutes trying to wind your film through, get it out without ruining your existing shots, searching for the ISO 200 that you didn't think to bring with you anyway. By the time you're ready to shoot, the drama of the once in a lifetime shot has long since past. Your buddy with a DSLR slides the dial to ISO 200, steps outside and gets the award winning shot. Sure, planes crashing are extreme examples - but life's filled with amazing unexpected moments that DSLRs let you get whilst changing film will miss many of them.

The world's moved on. Those arguments were fair enough for the first couple of generations of DSLRs. Honestly, it's now reached the point where it's like saying, "Steam gives better torque than internal combustion engines. I'm not going to buy one of those new fangled cars when my stanley steamer car works just fine." If you're determined to reinforce your preconceptions, you can probably just about find justification - but the rest of the world's moved on and for good reason.

Re:D40

[tverbeek]

As for power consumption, I'm not sure what's holding you back? ... They last a reasonable length of time. A battery grip like the "big ED" holds a pair of batteries so it's down to one change every couple of hours.

You sound like a Windows XP user bragging about how long he can go without rebooting. :)

I have a late-80's-vintage 35mm SLR that runs on a single button cell (i.e. no huge-ass "battery grip") for... hell, I can't even measure it in hours. Even when I was using it heavily, I'd go for months without changing it. I recently went on a 10-day backpacking trip recently, and thought for a long time whether to bring the 35mm SLR a couple lenses and a load of film, or the non-SLR digital a couple memory cards and a load of batteries. (I went with the latter.) If I'd owned a DSLR, it wouldn't even have been in the running, being heavier than both combined and requiring even more batteries. Like I said, there are a lot of good features to a digital camera (that's why I own one), and even more to a digital SLR. But trying to argue that their battery usage isn't a liability compared to a well-engineered film camera is just silly.

Re:D40

[moosesocks]

Although I'm going to agree with you on all of those points, I am going to chime in and say that T-Max is one of the biggest things I miss about film photography.

For one, shooting at ISO 3200 gives you razor-sharp results in almost any light conditions. Shooting digital at ISO 1600 in low-light produces noisy images, of which 3/4 are normally unusable. Film grain is preferable over sensor noise any day.

As far as films go, T-Max is pretty odd stuff. The range of light frequencies it responds to is quite different than most other B&W films, and it even responds well into the IR range. The dynamic range is excellent, and yet the photos are sharp and contrast-y.

Dynamic range (the range between the brightest and darkest portions of an image) is the biggest problem currently plaguing DSLRs, and I think we can look forward to the next generation of sensors offering far greater dynamic range, hopefully comprable to film.

That said, I shoot entirely digital these days. I don't miss paying for film, and certainly don't miss paying for processing.

Re:D40

[AK Marc]

If I'd owned a DSLR, it wouldn't even have been in the running, being heavier than both combined and requiring even more batteries.

Well, how many pictures were you planning on taking? If you were going to take 500 pictures, then you'd need 500/36 = about 13 rolls of film. My DSLR can take about 500 pictures on one battery. So, you'd need no extra batteries and no film. The weight between my SLR and DSLR is not significantly different. So, if you were to choose between a DSLR and an SLR, then for a two week camping trip, you'd be carying less weight with the DSLR than the SLR.

One more negative, one BIG positive

[jeskandarian]

My D70 with a powerful Nikon flash on top takes kick ass pictures where a point-n-shoot just can't throw enuff light. Hot chick waaay across the room? No problem. The flash will throw enuff light and the camera will make it look like Ansel Adams took it. Right up in someone's grill? No prob. DSLRs handle the flash and won't have any bright spots. Essentially, it doesn't matter if you're totally clueless on how to use it you just get killer results.

Problem is that at any kind of event, as soon as you walk in with an SLR with a flash, you always get "Oh, the photographer is here" comments. You just can't be discrete toting one of those things around.

But, drunk girls at 3 frames per second never fails to yield interesting results. The 'model instinct' naturally comes out and nasty sh$t starts to happen....

Re:One more negative, one BIG positive

[Riktov]

You just can't be discrete toting one of those things around.

You mean you just merge into one blob of flesh?

Re:One more negative, one BIG positive

[allanc]

Wait, what? The Nikon D70 will make a hot chick look like a national park?

The real reason

[3.14159265]

Superior optics. Period. Everything else is a nice to have, e.g. take 1000+ fotos with a single battery (without flash)
Got a Nikon D70, absolutely astonishing pictures, even though they say it's not the camera, but the person behind it... :)

As one who has a Nikon D70 DSLR...

[rdewalt]

I have looked at the other models, and right now, I don't see any that have told me "upgrade to me!" other than the "holy crap, 4k!" Nikon D2Xs.

Please, check out http://www.dpreview.com/ before you purchase a camera. No, seriously. When I was a salesdroid, I recommended -everyone- check that site at least once before spending $money on camera.

I saw the D80, and I looked at "What does it offer?" well, okay, its 10mp vs 6mp. But thats not enough to make me buy it. The D80 uses SD cards vs the CF/MD cards of the D70. No benefit there. I have $500 in microdrives. The extra resolution is nice, but not -by it self- enough. A 4x6 image only needs a "3mp" area to be displayed at "80% of humans will never discern it from film"

As a former salesman, you need to ask "What is my end result?" if the answer is "To send pics to grandma" Then -ANY- digital camera will do it. DSLR's bring forth the power of film cameras. If you don't need that power, you don't need a DSLR.

I have a half dozen lenses for my camera. But I'm a semi-pro photographer. A situation that inspires me to get a $400 lens, you might not feel the same on.

Go, Decide for yourself. I can lay out ten thousand reasons why I love my rig and gear. The will -NOT- apply to you. Such is art.

One Reason I'm Holding Off

[hahiss]

I probably won't buy one of these things until the attached cell phone works better. I mean, yeah, the pictures totally rock, but I can't exactly call anyone with them.

Talk about timing

[Banner]

I just bought a new Canon XTi like one HOUR before this article got published here. So now I'm afraid to go read it and find out what I screwed up!

Drat you slashdot!!! :-)

Re:Bummer

[parasonic]

A little side note here...

Sure, you have your DSLR cameras. You also have your point-and-shoots. However, just because a camera isn't a DSLR does NOT mean that you can call it a point-and-shoot. Take for example this camera. It classifies as neither. Just to keep everybody informed! (There still is a middle ground.)

Exposure latitude?

[SIGBUS]

Perhaps the "rigidity" is that image sensors tend to have a relatively narrow exposure latitude. If you're used to shooting slide film, this isn't a problem, but if you normally shoot negatives, it can trip you up.

One thing that can help is to shoot in RAW mode. With the Canon DSLRs, RAW will capture 36-bit color rather than 24-bit. The disadvantage is that you then need to postprocess the images to get decent results - but you can bring out details that would be lost in the shadows if you were shooting in JPEG mode.

Re:Exposure latitude?

[swillden]

With the Canon DSLRs, RAW will capture 36-bit color rather than 24-bit. The disadvantage is that you then need to postprocess the images to get decent results - but you can bring out details that would be lost in the shadows if you were shooting in JPEG mode.

I think shooting RAW is a good idea anyway. Not only does it capture greater contrast, but it provides you with control over the conversion process, getting the color, sharpness, white balance, etc. the way you want it, rather than accepting the camera's guesses. Sure, you can adjust the way the camera is going to do the conversion a little bit, but the control is limited and you can't change it afterwards.

Plus, if you get some decent software, like Bibblepro (runs on Windows, Mac & Linux x86), the conversion is nearly effortless. You're going to review your images on your computer before printing them (or whatever) anyway, so you might as well do it in the RAW converter.

I used to shoot RAW+JPEG, with the idea that gave me the best of both worlds, but in practice I find it takes no more effort to just shoot straight RAW, and uses up less space on the CF card.

Re:Exposure latitude?

[ceoyoyo]

You need to process negative film too, if you want to bring out details, it's just that usually you're trusting the kid at the photo-mart to do it for you. ;)

12-bit per channel RAW from most SLR sensors actually has a similar dynamic range to most common negative film, and is quite a bit more linear.

Re:Exposure latitude?

[dangitman]

The D80/70/50 series only support AF lenses.

Not true. I've used AI lenses, and modified F lenses from as far back as 1968 on D50s and D70s .

Points against the dSLR

[IronChef]

dSLRs have MANY advantages as the article points out. But it glosses over the cost issue. Getting a dSLR with the same reach as a long-zoom "prosumer" camera can cost quite a bit.

Take for example the Nikon Coolpix 8800, or the Panasonic FZ30. They both have good glass: the 8800 has a zoom range of, in 35mm equivalence, 35-350mm. The Panasonic is 35-420mm. Both have optical image stabilization built in, and both can do macro photography too. You also get dSLR style complete manual control if you want it. (Lots of non-dSLRs have good controls, I think the article flops out a red herring there. You just have to do your homework.)

The 8800 isn't made anymore, but it was about $800-900 new, about as much as the original Nikon d70 with kit lens I think. The Panasonic must be on the way out, as it is now about $400. (It is speculated that these types of cameras are a lot less profitable than dSLRs and so are getting erased from the lineups. I dunno.)

So why would I have bought an 8800 instead of a d70? Easy. The cost of a Nikon LENS that can hit 300mm of zoom seems to be about $500--and it still won't let you do macro. When you buy that affordable dSLR kit camera, you aren't buying a complete solution... you are buying a starting point unless your only interests fall in that ~28-105mm range the kit lens covers.

I must grant that the dSLR is superior in many ways, particularly quality of the sensor. A bigger sensor is less prone to noise at high ISO, so your DSLR can shoot cleaner at 1600 than my 8800 can at 200. That is a big deal! But to take full advantage of that, you need to carry around a bag of lenses. (The article didn't mention battery life, another big win for DSLRs by the way.)

I'm not slamming dSLRs. No flames, please. I'm just saying that there is an argument for buying a camera that can do a good job on a little bit of everything, even if it isn't the BEST at any of it. Like any other complex gadget, do your homework--there are a lot of really good cameras available these days. And this is a complicated hobby so you won't get everything you need to know from one top-10 list article (or snarky forum post). Figure out what you want to shoot and the choice of camera will become more clear.

ok, here come the haters, I know it...

Re:Just one word: dust

[stox]

Some new models are addressing that issue. For example, the Olympus E500 shakes the sensor clean on every power up. Other manufacturer's are using similar technology.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's totally right.

Saying everybody needs a DSLR because the results are better is short sighted at best. Yes, the results can be better if used properly. But the costs are high - I'm sorry, but 1000$ won't get you anywhere (perhaps a cheap consumer DSLR and couple so-so kit lenses, nothing more). I have several thousands $ worth of glass, and I still need to spend more: I really need a good UltraWide because of the crop factor (and that's already half of your 1000$ budget!) To have a good DSLR that'll last you a while you'll need to spend a good amount

A Good DSLR (high speed/fps and good buffer, good x-sync speed, decent build quality, decent ISO range/noise, with decent set of features, options like battery packs, etc) is not cheap, but that's just the very beginning! Still not cheap.

You also need memory cards which can cost hundreds even though they've come down in price a LOT lately (and preferably some way to empty them like an "image tank" or laptop for trips)

And spare li-ion battery packs (can be pricey) or lots of nimh batteries (and cases for 'em) and chargers

And the "good" flash for your camera system (typically around 500$)

A good sturdy and versatile tripod and suitable head, easily 250$ (hundreds more if you want a pano head too!)

And some camera bag (can get more expensive than one thinks) like say a mini-trekker or such, around 100$

Accessories like cable release/IR remote, microfiber cloths/cleaning pen, sensor swaps + eclipse, quick-release/mounting plates, etc - it adds up pretty quickly!

A "walkaround" lens, a decent telephoto (not the cheapo 70-300mm Tamron "coke bottles") and a superwide to start with. Eventually a macro lens (and all kinds of macro gear like tubes/bellows, ring flashes, reversing rings, etc), primes, nice lenses with vibration reduction or such. This will easily cost several thousands by itself.

Filters for all your lenses! UV filters to protect 'em. A GOOD circular polarizer (hoya or whatever, NOT no-name crap!), ND grads, etc. Eventually you may want a IR filter (fun stuff), something like some of the fun/best Cokin P filters (e.g. blue/yellow polarizer) or such. You can spend hundreds on this again. And you want to buy 'em big, and buy stepping rings - NOT buy a set for each size of lens! Nice large (77mm+) filters are pretty expensive.

Honestly, you can't possibly have a decent DSLR kit anywhere near 1000$ (Hell, I've spend 3x that on a DSLR body alone)

And even when you have one, you STILL need/want a P&S digicam too. It's not like you'll carry the DSLR everywhere with you. And because you don't, you'll miss countless nice things. I've seen hundreds of neat or plain amazing things I had not expected to come across before, and the P&S came in handy countless times like that (when taking walks, at the parks with the kids when visiting family, that super nice bike I've seen at the mall the other day, at a camp fire with my dad this summer, etc - even just for photographing things I don't want to foget about/as a reminder!) The DSLR would have captured that in much better quality, but it's not practical to carry everywhere. It's no substitute for a small P&s. No need to be fancy. I got a very nice DSLR kit, but my P&S is a puny Nikon Coolpix L2. Cheap, small, good on batteries, half-decent zoom, etc. No need for high-quality or high-megapixel for simple snapshots (getting the picture is more important than the level of noise or level of detail). Oh, it does video too @ 640x480 (kinda fun), which my DSLR doesn't. And it has lots of "helper modes" that some may appreciate a lot.

Oh, and a DSLR hardly makes better pictures by itself. I found that pretty frustrating the day I bought my first SLR (non-digital). Even after spending thousands, the photos can actually be WORSE than using a P&S! They only become better once you master the tool (knowing about ISO speeds, f/stops, how long a shutter time you can handhold, Depth of Field, hyperfocal distance, etc). Most people

Re:Bummer

[Cromac]

Cameras like that and the Panasonic FZ30/50 have many manual features similar to a DSLR but still aren't in the same league as far as photo quality goes. They're still hamstrung by fairly tiny sensor that is prone to noise anytime you have to go above ISO 100.

Pentax K100D Seconded but most importantly....

[guisar]

I also have a Pentax K100D and really like it's ability to use about every lens ever made. I wouldn't go back to a digicam. Just being able to adjust the depth of field and manually focus are huge advantages. It's really feel frustrated to use a point and shoot once you've used an SLR. This assumes of course that you are as infatuated with perfection and willing to read up, study and practice to perfection as I assume most readers of slashdot are.

One point I think the article skipped over though is the proprietary (RAW) format of most DSLRs. Unless you plan to take and save JPEGS, in which case you're better off using a digicam, you gotta use RAW. RAW's problem is it's a PITA to process. gphoto, etc for Linux sometimes deal with RAW, but others, like my model of the Pentax aren't even accomodated by Photoshop yet. So, beware you can't just take pictures out of these and upload them to flickr or do the other things you might be used to.

Good quality pictures, the sort of thing you see in the galleries of highly rated photos on www.photo.net, come from RAW photos that are processed in gphoto, GIMP, Photoshop, etc to bring out the best of the shot. It's not a quick process and you should aim more for the few good shots sort of scenario and leave the lot of candid photos to digicams or DSLRs on auto/jpeg mode.

The RAW format isn't the only proprietary trap of DSLRs. I bought a Pentax primarily because of the ease of lens interchange but it also uses standard old SD cards and regular AA batteries. I use rechargeables but the point is I don't have to buy those VERY expensive proprietary batteries or flavor of the month memory formats as you may if you don't watch out.

Re:Pentax K100D Seconded but most importantly....

[swillden]

RAW's problem is it's a PITA to process. gphoto, etc for Linux sometimes deal with RAW, but others, like my model of the Pentax aren't even accomodated by Photoshop yet

Check out Bibble and Bibblepro from Bibble Labs. They're neither free nor Free, but they're reasonably-priced, excellent tools and they run on Windows, Mac and Linux (x86). I just looked and they support your camera. You should get the 15-day trial and see what you think.

BTW, I have no affiliation with Bibble Labs, other than being a very satisfied customer.

Re:Pentax K100D Seconded but most importantly....

[loraksus]

The RAW format isn't the only proprietary trap of DSLRs. I bought a Pentax primarily because of the ease of lens interchange but it also uses standard old SD cards and regular AA batteries. I use rechargeables but the point is I don't have to buy those VERY expensive proprietary batteries or flavor of the month memory formats as you may if you don't watch out.

Except that AA's - even rechargables - suck ass for powering cameras.I have a D50 and the kit battery lets me take somewhat in the area of 1700 pictures between charges. I can go out for an entire day, shooting continuously and filling up over 3 gigs of SD cards and come home at the end of the night with juice left for the next day. Before, I'd have to change batteries every 200 or so shots.

The kit batteries hold much more power for their weight and size (nimh aa cells are the heaviest) and you have an overall better experience. Besides, the "expensive" batteries are pretty cheap if you compare the cost of buying them to buying AA nimh cells. Could even be cheaper.

Most DSLRs use common cards. CF dominated, now SD is slowly making its way in.

Agree 100%

[Desult]

I'm a total amateur, but I've fallen in love with photography thanks to the XT. I've not used a 30D, but I can't imagine that it would present *that* much benefit to a person brand new to photography... I can set everything I need to set on my XT within a second or two. Generally I let it do its own metering and either select aperture or shutter speed, this works very well for me, especially as I'm still learning what combinations yield what results - I'm generally much happier with a shot that's exposed properly so I can see what mistakes I've made, rather than getting something pitch dark or entirely washed out and basically having to throw it away. Still, I can set mode, ISO, speed/aperture very quickly, often without looking. It'd be nice if I had a dial for ISO rather than having to go through the menu but as long as you remember what ISO you're currently on, it's not tough to set it by feel (and you can probably tell by the resulting change in light metering). I'm sure for a pro more speed/flexibility might be desirable, but for hobbyists I would totally agree with the lens comment. I can sell/give away my XT in a few years when I start getting frustrated with the controls (if that ever really happens), and upgrade to the next step up at 20 megapixels or whatever is current.

For Canon, I would strongly recommend the 50mm f/1.8, it's under 100 bucks and will let you take most indoor shots without a flash. It is extremely easy to use and will let you get used to a prime lens. The autofocus is slow and noisy, but it gets the job done. Another great lens I've had experience with is the 28-135 IS - it's got an image stabilizer which isn't quite as useful as I had hoped, but it's a very good range of zoom for typical walkabout photography, it's not too hefty, and the image quality is quite good in my admittedly uncultured opinion! You can get the new XTi, both of these lenses and still walk away paying less than getting a 30D with no lens at all. The XT kit lens isn't horrible either, it lets you get down to 18mm for 100 bucks... I'm not sure if there are that many options that wide without either being fish-eyes or over 700 bucks.

A couple provisos - getting into the DSLR habit is like getting into musical instruments, car tuning, or home theater, or high end PC gaming. You're going to get addicted to it and start spending absurd amounts of money (if you're not careful). "Good" (L) Canon lenses start in the neighborhood of 1000 bucks. I haven't bought into that level yet, because I know it'd be throwing my money away at my current skill level. However, like good musical instruments, the stuff you buy has the potential to last a very long time, and from what I've read the Canon EF lens series has been going strong for quite a while now. But you're still pouring money into what will some day be obsolete technology, or worse, something you're not interested in anymore. Secondly, when you get "serious" about it, you look like a total nerd. I still feel very very awkward carrying a camera bag around - but if you're going to do anything useful with your camera you just about have to. Even without the bag, the camera is very obtrusive in the best of times, with small lens on. If you're reading this far into a comment on Slashdot, you probably don't care, but hey, fair warning. =) In the long run, I will probably buy a point and shoot so I can have something I can stick in my pocket and take places I wouldn't feel comfortable/interested in lugging my real camera around to. Once you start the hobby, you really start thinking about photographing everything interesting you see, in my experience.

Oh, and the other thing that sorta bites about the whole hobby is vendor lock-in. Your camera vendor is your lens vendor is your accessory vendor. There are cheaper knock-off lenses, but in general, the higher quality stuff is single vendor. If you're interested in Canon, or if you're a DSLR initiate like myself, I've found this page to be very, very useful:

Re:Agree 100%

[swillden]

For Canon, I would strongly recommend the 50mm f/1.8, it's under 100 bucks and will let you take most indoor shots without a flash.

Absolutely. Fantastic little lens, great for indoor portaiture, and you can actually get it on-line for about $70, sometimes $60 if you watch a little. It's extremely sharp, has good color, no significant vignetting... really it has no flaws other than its cheap plastic construction, which is also what makes it really light.

Another great lens I've had experience with is the 28-135 IS - it's got an image stabilizer which isn't quite as useful as I had hoped, but it's a very good range of zoom for typical walkabout photography

I looked at that, and at the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens, but ended up buying a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 instead. It's sharper than either of the other two (even sharper than the 50mm f/1.8 at 50mm!) and the wide f/2.8 fixed aperture (doesn't narrow as you zoom in) makes it very good indoors and in dim light. Not only that, it's also slightly cheaper than the Canon 28-135 and much cheaper than the 17-85. No IS, but the larger aperture makes up for that.

The XT kit lens isn't horrible either, it lets you get down to 18mm for 100 bucks

Yeah, but that's its only positive. It's a pretty good $100 lens. Lots of photographers would say that the best use for the kit lens is holding down papers on a windy day. It beats the crap out of a P&S lens, of course, but that's all it really is, a better P&S lens.

"Good" (L) Canon lenses start in the neighborhood of 1000 bucks.

Yeah, I've got my eye on a Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L. $1400-$1600. Ouch. Man is it a nice lens, though...

There are cheaper knock-off lenses, but in general, the higher quality stuff is single vendor.

That I can't agree with. Tamron and Sigma make some very high quality lenses. They also make some absolute trash. Read some reviews and it's easy to find out which is which. I know a serious pro (1Ds Mk II) who won't buy anything but Sigma for wide angle. And my Tamron is a really sweet lens. At the really high end -- those L series lenses -- Canon's lenses are unmatched by any third party lenses AFAICT, but in the under-$1K market the third parties have some very compelling options.

Re:Agree 100%

[Matt_R]

Yeah, I've got my eye on a Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L. $1400-$1600. Ouch. Man is it a nice lens, though...

I have the 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. They all rock. I am thinking of selling the 70-200, as I hardly use it now I have the 100-400.

Re:Agree 100%

[dangitman]

Yeah, I've got my eye on a Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L. $1400-$1600. Ouch. Man is it a nice lens, though...

What makes it such a nice lens? It seems very slow for the money. f4 at 100mm? I don't think I could bear that.

Re:Agree 100%

[swillden]

Mainly because this lens will be much sharper at f/4 than faster comparably-priced lenses at the same stop. To get comparable sharpness out of most other lenses you'd have to stop them down to f/8 or so anyway. In dim light you can often get more detail with a very sharp lens and a high ISO (especially with today's DSLRs which aren't very noisy at even 800) than with a faster but softer lens. For still subjects, the IS gives you another stop or two, which can also help.

Re:/. should fix the tagging system or trash it

[jamie]

As our tags FAQ makes clear, abuse of tags will result in that user's tags having lessened or zero impact on our system. By the time you read this, the silly tags should be purged from this story and the silly taggers' ability to affect our system reduced.

Re:SLR and make sure it is a CCD

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

6. Women like to pose for DSLR then to teensy point and shoot.

I'm sold!

Watch out for the "lens factor!"

[Magnus Pym]

If you have never used an SLR before and have no investment in lenses etc, by all means, go ahead and buy a DSLR. You won't be disappointed by the image quality.

However, if you are a longtime film-SLR user and have an investment in SLR lenses for some platform, then watch out!

In a nutshell, most of the lenses in your collection will not be really usable with your shiny new DSLR! This is because most DSLR use an imaging sensor that has a different size than the 35 MM film size. What this means is that the effective focal lengths of all your lenses are going to be different from what they are when fixed to a film camera. Nikon has a multiplication factor of 1.5. Depending on the model, Canon has a multiplication factor of 1.5 or 1.6. [Some of Canon's Very Expensive cameras have a 35-mm size sensor and have no multiplication factor]

What this means is that your 50mm lens will have an effective focal length of75 mm, reducing its utility considerably. You will find that you will have to replace pretty much all your stock lenses with new "digital-ready" lenses, a pretty significant investment overall. I am surprised that the article did not mention it.

Why is this? The camera companies say that full-frame sensors are expensive, and that they don't contribute much to image quality anyway. The former might be true, but not something that investment and time won't fix. The latter is completely bogus. They said the same thing about the APS system, but the marketplace quickly figured out that this was not right and rejected the system.

Here is the real reason: Companies like Canon and Nikon make far more money on their lenses than they do on their cameras. They are always looking for ways to make you buy more lenses. If their old-line lenses could work with the new DSLRs, they have lost a huge profit opportunity! But they cannot change the format of the camera-lens connector without a huge backlash from the customers. So this is a way by which they can force the adoption of an entirely new line of lenses, at the same time maintaining plausible deniability.

If you regularly use an external flash, you will have to buy a new external flash as well. The flashes that used to work with film cameras are not fully compatible with the DSLRs.

Magnus

Re:lenses lenses lenses

[dangitman]

Photo.net has jokes about people who buy SLR with a basic zoom lens.

There are lots of wankers with equipment fetishes* on sites like that. Many of them have more money than sense, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Many SLRs with basic zoom lenses produce very good results.

And with the point and shoot digital LCD to review pictures immediately, looking thru the lens doesn't matter as much.

There's no comparison between an LCD preview and actually looking through the lens. It's a poor substitute.

* Hey, I have an equipment fetish myself, but I don't invest my ego in it, or begrudge people who use cheaper gear that suits their needs.

11 Reasons to Buy a Digital PHD Camera

[theonetruekeebler]

Unless you're a professional, or even a dedicated amateur, a digital press-here-dummy camera is probably all you'll ever need:

1. Price: A midrange DPHD costs less than half what the most basic DSLR is going for.
2. Size: Most DPHDs will fit in your shirt pocket.
3. Weight: Big, clunky DSLRs are also heavy. Your hands get tired dealing with it, and your neck hurts from carrying it on a strap.
4. Single unit design: The whole camera is a single entity. No lenses to take on and off, no lens caps to lose, no equipment bags to lug around. The only accessory is a little cable you leave at home next to your laptop -- same as with the DSLR.
5. Ergonomic simplicity: A DPHD is designed for one-handed operation.
6. LCD viewfinder: You'll be amazed at how often you want to take a picture, but have no way to get your head in the right position to take a shot. The LCD lets you hold the camera away from you, to the side, wherever, just as long as you can see the display. Some even have flip-out displays so you can take pictures of things behind you.
7. Ease of use: Okay, DSLRs have pretty efficient automatic modes. But switching to manual mode is like turning off the autopilot on a fighter jet -- you better know what you're doing or everything goes to hell at once.
8. You can hand it to your kid: The entire instruction set is "look here and push this button."
9. You can hand it to a stranger: "Can you get a picture of me and my honey in front of the manatee tank? Just look through here and push this button."
10. Durability: Knock a DSLR and a DPHD off the patio table and see one bounces and which one turns to rubble.
11. You ain't that good: Probably one camera owner in ten is skilled enough -- or willing to take the time to become skilled enough -- that they can take advantage of the capabilities a DSLR has over a PHD camera. For the rest of us, the real magic of any digital camera is that you can play the odds: Take a dozen snaps at a time, without spending a dime on film, and see which one turns out right.

Counter argument

[ItsIllak]

I'm personally going the other way. Ideally I'd like a decent DSLR and a super-compact. The latter would live in my bag and the former would be for specific opportunities. In reality, what would happen is that the latter would be in my bag, and the DSLR would be in the cupboard.

DSLRs have lots of problems, even ignoring the technical ones (dust being the biggest). Pull one out in public and you'll get treated differently (usually negatively). Pull out a good quality compact and everyone will ignore you. The one above, they're just NOT everyday-portable.

I see his point, but just to rebuff some of them ..


Creative Control:


Not seen the Casio Z1000 or Z800, the Canon S70 or S80, the Panasonic LX1, LX2, the Leica Digilux 1 or 2 or many more then? There are quite a few very small cameras that give you lots of camera control.


Accessories Galore:


Plenty of cameras either have after-market add ons to give them a standard fitting, or even manufacturer add-ons. However, try getting a manageable underwater case for your new D80 - it'll cost a fortune and act as it's own personal float.


No Shutter Lag

Instant Startup


Sure, but there are plenty of the DSLRs that are pretty crap in this respect too. The latest generation are the first you can reasonably rely on.


Higher Build Quality


See above list for pretty well constructed, metal bodied cameras.


Viewfinder

I'm not sure you'll get many Electronic View Finders in the smallest compacts, but there are increasing numbers as the size increases. Other than that, you often get reasonable rangefinders. Not SLR, but you get used to it very quickly


Ergonomics

Seriously? It's not always better to have a huge luggable camera to hold.


Price


Seriously? No really, SERIOUSLY? The price of the compacts is lower than the DSLRs. End of story.

One thing that deserves mentioning

[cyberworm]

It's been a while since I've shot film, but if I remember correctly, White Balancing was never an issue. I've found that with my D50 I have to realllllllly keep track of how my camera is set in regards to white balancing (even on Auto... I use "Probably" aka Program and Manual unless I hand my camera off to someone so I can be in the photo).
The "auto" WB mode does ok for most stuff if I'm using a flash or outdoors. When I move inside though, it becomes apparent how poorly the camera recognizes Incandescent light bulbs or flourecent lighting. Granted when I go do post processing of the RAW images, I have the option to correct these, but if you're just an average guy taking family snaps you could really be disappointed that your 600$ super camera is making Aunt Helen look jaundiced, like an Ooompa Loompa, or a Smurf. With film, what you see has usually been what you get. With digital, it's been my experience that if you don't pay attention, you may not always get what you see.

My camera

[^_^x]

I'm not going to get in-depth with the reasons here - I am not a pro photographer, nor are most people, but I know how to properly set things like white balance, shutter speed, focal aperture, etc... to get the effects I want.

I have a Sony DSC-P150 I got a few years ago. It was about $400 at the time, and is a 7MP camera with built-in Zeiss lens.
A friend of mine got an Olympus DSLR (don't know the model) also 7MP.

Comparing the two:
- For ordinary photos, we're about comparable, except my pics are slightly blurrier (I'd say 90-95% quality of his DSLR), and he can save uncompressed, where I can't.
- In low light - actually both cameras are outstanding. In extreme darkness, I can see a little grain on my camera, but it's so small I can't tell if it's the CCD or just JPEG artifacts.
- Startup time is about the same. Actually, I'm probably about a half second faster, and what's more, my camera has to remove its lens cover and extend the lens. We can both go from off to having shot one pic, saved it, and ready to shoot again in about 3-5 seconds, so so much for the DSLR speed argument. My time also includes autofocus.
- He can do extreme, artistic, impractical things like set his shutter speed to several seconds. Fine - even if I had it, I wouldn't use it.
- THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE: My camera was $400 a couple years ago, and his was $800 this year. 200% the cost, 110% the quality, 120% the functionality... to me, it just doesn't add up why you'd pay that much, but hey - it's his hobby, so whatever floats his boat... For most people, including avid amateur photographers, I'd say only consider DSLR if you're getting REALLY serious about photography, or want some heavy-duty extra features that wouldn't be needed in "normal" photography. Otherwise, you're just paying for a camera that lacks preview ability, and collects dust on its sensor... oh, and that can interchange lenses, but then again with a cheap adapter, I could do the same - and there are point & shoot cams that already have a ring for lenses on them.